Scots to bring in minimum price booze

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

Much quicker if you just say that the State knows better than the individual, which I fundamentally disagree with. Nanny State call it what you will.Freedom of choice is a basic understand of a democratic Society. Don’t tax, educate.

I would quite agree with educate instead of tax.

But what happens when you try to educate and people freely choose to ignore the education because it's simply more enjoyable to drink alcohol and eat takeaway food, or they have certain mental/physical predispositions which lead them to consume more of these things?

What do you do then?

The state often does know better than many individuals. I don't think that is deniable

I would like to say that I would prefer a world where state interference is not necessary, but unfortunately the real world doesn't function like that.

Edited to add: My views would be different if this country put the cost of personal health and welfare almost entirely on the individual citizen. If everyone had to pay for their own healthcare and welfare directly, then I would feel massively more relaxed about it all. People should be allowed to drink, smoke and eat as much as they want free of government taxation and interference, provided they were willing to pay the price themselves of their required healthcare.

But in our country, we have a social system of healthcare (which I totally agree with) and therefore there needs to be limits placed on the avoidable strain that people can sometimes place on the system. If people will not do this willingly, then they must be forced, because there is simply no other way.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 27th September 14:54

[Dr Jekyll]

Lord Marylebone said:

I would quite agree with educate instead of tax.

But what happens when you try to educate and people freely choose to ignore the education because it's simply more enjoyable to drink alcohol and eat takeaway food, or they have certain mental/physical predispositions which lead them to consume more of these things?

What do you do then?

Then you accept that it's their choice. Whether the pleasure to an individual of alcohol and/or takeaway food (or mountaineering or potholing or avoiding the gym) outweighs the health risk is a decision only the individual can make.

[anonymous-user]

Dr Jekyll said:

Lord Marylebone said:

I would quite agree with educate instead of tax.

But what happens when you try to educate and people freely choose to ignore the education because it's simply more enjoyable to drink alcohol and eat takeaway food, or they have certain mental/physical predispositions which lead them to consume more of these things?

What do you do then?

Then you accept that it's their choice. Whether the pleasure to an individual of alcohol and/or takeaway food (or mountaineering or potholing or avoiding the gym) outweighs the health risk is a decision only the individual can make.

Then what would you do when the avoidable problems caused by obesity, smoking and alcohol begin to impose huge strain and expensive on our NHS and other care systems?

What would be the solution?

[crankedup]

Lord Marylebone said:

crankedup said:

Much quicker if you just say that the State knows better than the individual, which I fundamentally disagree with. Nanny State call it what you will.Freedom of choice is a basic understand of a democratic Society. Don’t tax, educate.

I would quite agree with educate instead of tax.

But what happens when you try to educate and people freely choose to ignore the education because it's simply more enjoyable to drink alcohol and eat takeaway food, or they have certain mental/physical predispositions which lead them to consume more of these things?

What do you do then?

The state often does know better than many individuals. I don't think that is deniable

I would like to say that I would prefer a world where state interference is not necessary, but unfortunately the real world doesn't function like that.

Look at the % of fatties involved and measure that growth (no pun) time durations, pressure the manufacturers through subtle shaming. State interference in the U.K. on the issue of food and drink via taxation is lazyand divisive, will not solve the problems. I say education begins at primary school learning, all the stuff we were taught about cooking, eating your greens, the we used to call it was scrapped.
Because some people refuse to be educated to introduce taxation on that basis is, imo, just wrong U.K. has the highest percentage of obese people in the World, Go ernment inaction and plain wrong actions d to be addressed, club hammer approach will not work, people will always find ways around
tax. Add to that tax hurts the poor more than the wealthy. Its a higher percentage of obese in the poor than wealthy, some poor do not have a choice other than cheap unhealthy food.

From day one our grandchild was offered fresh fruit instead of sweets. Things like grapes, oranges, bananas, he will chose fruit every time now as a snack over sweets. His six years old. Education works.
Likely it will be a mixture though, education and tax. It certainly needs to be sorted.

[crankedup]

Lord Marylebone said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Lord Marylebone said:

I would quite agree with educate instead of tax.

But what happens when you try to educate and people freely choose to ignore the education because it's simply more enjoyable to drink alcohol and eat takeaway food, or they have certain mental/physical predispositions which lead them to consume more of these things?

What do you do then?

Then you accept that it's their choice. Whether the pleasure to an individual of alcohol and/or takeaway food (or mountaineering or potholing or avoiding the gym) outweighs the health risk is a decision only the individual can make.

Then what would you do when the avoidable problems caused by obesity, smoking and alcohol begin to impose huge strain and expensive on our NHS and other care systems?

What would be the solution?

We are human, nothing can be perfect, trying to introduce sanctions into unhealthy lifestyles will only serve to create further Social problems. Even if Government introduced free gymnasium we would still see people who would refuse to indulge.

[Dr Jekyll]

Lord Marylebone said:

Then what would you do when the avoidable problems caused by obesity, smoking and alcohol begin to impose huge strain and expensive on our NHS and other care systems?

What would be the solution?

Tobacco and alcohol are already punitively taxed, the govt actually benefits from smokers and drinkers, even non smoking teetotallers get ill and die eventually, and probably collect more old age pensions in the meantime.

As for obesity, it's increased because people take less exercise not because they eat more than they used to. It's certainly nothing to do with 'fast food'. The definition of obesity also includes people whose weight is not going to cause them any issues.

[Murph7355]

Dr Jekyll said:

...As for obesity, it's increased because people take less exercise not because they eat more than they used to. It's certainly nothing to do with 'fast food'. The definition of obesity also includes people whose weight is not going to cause them any issues.

tbf obesity is (at least) a two factor equation.

Those who are obese aren't exercising enough for the amount they are shovelling into their pie holes (with the exception of the rare instances where something genetic is at play). Both factors can and probably should be adjusted to get into the non-obese category.

I think there is also a school of thought that any amount of obesity will cause you problems to one degree or other. Whether you actually notice is neither here nor there.

Maybe we should offer bikes and other exercise equipment tax free if it's hooked up to a central monitoring station (or the grid - two birds, one stone. Or two birds, 30 stone more likely) and you burn enough calories?

[sbarclay62]

Bear in mind when reading the results of minimum pricing its not solely minimum pricing but a range of other things in Scotland that will also help reduce intake.

-No multibuy offers in shops
-Shops can only sell alcohol between 10am and 10pm
-Restricted pub opening hours (generally 11am to 1am for pubs however some can open at 9am. Clubs can open until 3am)
-No happy hours in bars or clubs
-Can't drink in the streets (except Edinburgh I think)
-Can only drink on trains between 10am and 9pm
-Think 25 to stop underage drinking


The only problem I have with it is that if you like a good drink and your tipple is a £50 bottle of Gin you're ok, your alcohol units obivsouly don't count towards the nations problem. However if you like 4 cans of Lidls 5.2% lager on a Friday then toughst, your alcohol intake does count so you can't have it no more. That's why a tax would be fairer.

As others have said education is key. It's not detered me. Instead of buying 24 cans on payday that would last a month i just buy 4 pint cans on a Friday. Seems less expensive even though its the same price. I also laugh at how they say its the price and availability off it that's Scotland's problem. In Berlin I had a jack and coke in a metro station from a chinese noddle stand while waiting on some scran, i then went to lidls and noticed you can buy a cold 500ML can for 50 cents and we ended up in a 24-hr pub til 7am due to an early flight. How do the German's not have the same problem as us?

[ZedLeg]

sbarclay62 said:

-Can't drink in the streets (except Edinburgh I think)

It's not actually legal anywhere since the local police forces folded into Police Scotland. They're generally more lenient in Edinburgh then Glasgow but I got told off for finishing a beer in the street once .

[Murph7355]

sbarclay62 said:

...
-Can only drink on trains between 10am and 9pm
...

That one must be intolerable! FFS.

[Evercross]

Driver101 said:

I have zero issues with minimum pricing. Given all the costs associated with alcohol inflamed incidents and the strain it puts the NHS under I'm all for it. People shouldn't be able to get wasted for just a few quid. The people drinking should be paying for the resources they drain.

Except that despite several years of MUP there is still no evidence that it has any effect on 'alcohol inflamed incidents'. Meaningless virtue signalling on matters of public health policy is IMO negligent and scandalous. A faith held belief or assumption that something is obviously going to work just isn't good enough, and trumpeting such policy as a success with no or fake evidence is nothing short of bare-faced lies.

sbarclay62 said:

As others have said education is key.,,,,,,

In Berlin I had a jack and coke in a metro station from a chinese noddle stand while waiting on some scran, i then went to lidls and noticed you can buy a cold 500ML can for 50 cents and we ended up in a 24-hr pub til 7am due to an early flight. How do the German's not have the same problem as us?

Same thing in many other countries. Having been brought up in a Mediterranean family environment living in Scotland I can say from personal experience and observation of my friends at the time that a totally prohibitive attitude to alcohol is as much of a contributor to the problem as a liberal or negligent attitude to underage drinking.

Edited by Evercross on Friday 27th September 16:11

[technodup]

sbarclay62 said:

Bear in mind when reading the results of minimum pricing its not solely minimum pricing but a range of other things in Scotland that will also help reduce intake.

-No multibuy offers in shops
-Shops can only sell alcohol between 10am and 10pm
-Restricted pub opening hours (generally 11am to 1am for pubs however some can open at 9am. Clubs can open until 3am)
-No happy hours in bars or clubs
-Can't drink in the streets (except Edinburgh I think)
-Can only drink on trains between 10am and 9pm
-Think 25 to stop underage drinking


The only problem I have with it is that if you like a good drink and your tipple is a £50 bottle of Gin you're ok, your alcohol units obivsouly don't count towards the nations problem. However if you like 4 cans of Lidls 5.2% lager on a Friday then toughst, your alcohol intake does count so you can't have it no more. That's why a tax would be fairer.

As others have said education is key. It's not detered me. Instead of buying 24 cans on payday that would last a month i just buy 4 pint cans on a Friday. Seems less expensive even though its the same price. I also laugh at how they say its the price and availability off it that's Scotland's problem. In Berlin I had a jack and coke in a metro station from a chinese noddle stand while waiting on some scran, i then went to lidls and noticed you can buy a cold 500ML can for 50 cents and we ended up in a 24-hr pub til 7am due to an early flight. How do the German's not have the same problem as us?

So you're in favour of government intervention for us, whilst observing that other countries with less government intervention have fewer problems with alcohol? Forgive me for being confused.

I'm in Spain right now. Lager on the same shelf as Coke in most of the shops. Bottles of wine for £1.20. Nobody falling over in the street steaming. It's almost as if people don't need some endless bureaucracy telling them what they can and can't do.

[Driver101]

sbarclay62 said:

Bear in mind when reading the results of minimum pricing its not solely minimum pricing but a range of other things in Scotland that will also help reduce intake.

-No multibuy offers in shops
-Shops can only sell alcohol between 10am and 10pm
-Restricted pub opening hours (generally 11am to 1am for pubs however some can open at 9am. Clubs can open until 3am)
-No happy hours in bars or clubs
-Can't drink in the streets (except Edinburgh I think)
-Can only drink on trains between 10am and 9pm
-Think 25 to stop underage drinking


The only problem I have with it is that if you like a good drink and your tipple is a £50 bottle of Gin you're ok, your alcohol units obivsouly don't count towards the nations problem. However if you like 4 cans of Lidls 5.2% lager on a Friday then toughst, your alcohol intake does count so you can't have it no more. That's why a tax would be fairer.

As others have said education is key. It's not detered me. Instead of buying 24 cans on payday that would last a month i just buy 4 pint cans on a Friday. Seems less expensive even though its the same price. I also laugh at how they say its the price and availability off it that's Scotland's problem. In Berlin I had a jack and coke in a metro station from a chinese noddle stand while waiting on some scran, i then went to lidls and noticed you can buy a cold 500ML can for 50 cents and we ended up in a 24-hr pub til 7am due to an early flight. How do the German's not have the same problem as us?

Most of the things you've raised were in place a long time ago and nothing to do with minimum pricing.

Pubs and clubs can get licences to all hours depending on their local council. There is pubs open to 3am and clubs later than 3am.

The train curfew was to stop trouble.

I'm not up to speed with English rules, but I believe the 24 hour drinking laws didn't have the impact people thought? Not many places changed their opening hours? Supermarkets still only trade for a few hours on Sunday. Not the 24 hours we are used to in most placed in Scotland.

A tax would be fairer? There's already a lot of tax on alcohol. The problem was some drinks were very cheap considering how much damage they can do. That £50 bottle of gin has a lot of duty and VAT. About £20 of the £50 bottle of a good gin will be taxes.

Something like Frost Jack's only contributes about £2 and has 70-75% of the alcohol content. I'm sure most people don't tank a £50 bottle of gin, but nobody keeps a bottle of Frosty Jack's for weeks.

[Driver101]

Evercross said:

Driver101 said:

I have zero issues with minimum pricing. Given all the costs associated with alcohol inflamed incidents and the strain it puts the NHS under I'm all for it. People shouldn't be able to get wasted for just a few quid. The people drinking should be paying for the resources they drain.

Except that despite several years of MUP there is still no evidence that it has any effect on 'alcohol inflamed incidents'. Meaningless virtue signalling on matters of public health policy is IMO negligent and scandalous. A faith held belief or assumption that something is obviously going to work just isn't good enough, and trumpeting such policy as a success with no or fake evidence is nothing short of bare-faced lies.

sbarclay62 said:

As others have said education is key.,,,,,,

In Berlin I had a jack and coke in a metro station from a chinese noddle stand while waiting on some scran, i then went to lidls and noticed you can buy a cold 500ML can for 50 cents and we ended up in a 24-hr pub til 7am due to an early flight. How do the German's not have the same problem as us?

Same thing in many other countries. Having been brought up in a Mediterranean family environment living in Scotland I can say from personal experience and observation of my friends at the time that a totally prohibitive attitude to alcohol is as much of a contributor to the problem as a liberal or negligent attitude to underage drinking.

Edited by Evercross on Friday 27th September 16:11

Years of MUP? It only came into effect last year.

Sadly at the time of MUP being introduced we also face Brexit. Many hate/violent crimes have been put at the door of Brexit.

Where are the facts that show it doesn't work?

[Evercross]

Driver101 said:

Where are the facts that show it doesn't work?

And when did you stop beating your wife?

And if you don't get the reference - the burden of proof is on the people introducing the measures to prove they do work if they are making claims to that effect. Otherwise they are being at best negligent and at worse disingenuous.

[Driver101]

Evercross said:

Driver101 said:

Where are the facts that show it doesn't work?

And when did you stop beating your wife?

And if you don't get the reference - the burden of proof is on the people introducing the measures to prove they do work if they are making claims to that effect. Otherwise they are being at best negligent and at worse disingenuous.

Why do they have to prove something? If you are so confident it hasn't had any effect you'd have evidence at hand.

My local police force recently released their crime figures. Overall crime has dropped 8%. At a time of Brexit tension that really surprised me.

We also know that lots of people preload at home on cheap drinks before they hit the pubs and clubs. There was a 27% reduction in attendances to pubs and clubs for incidents.

It's hard to extract exact reasons for everything, but a 27% improvement since MUP came into effect is good. It could be coincidence, but there could be good merit.

You can't sit there and say confidently it's not working especially when you can't back it up. It's going to take time and I do think it'll help.

[Evercross]

Driver101 said:

Why do they have to prove something?

If you have to ask that question then it shows you lack the intelligence to understand the consequences of government imposing measures without justification or evidence of their stated aims.

Driver101 said:

If you are so confident it hasn't had any effect you'd have evidence at hand.

So wrong-headed it is unbelievable.

Driver101 said:

My local police force recently released their crime figures. Overall crime has dropped 8%. At a time of Brexit tension that really surprised me.

We also know that lots of people preload at home on cheap drinks before they hit the pubs and clubs. There was a 27% reduction in attendances to pubs and clubs for incidents.

It's hard to extract exact reasons for everything, but a 27% improvement since MUP came into effect is good. It could be coincidence, but there could be good merit.

I can see you are a complete sucker for this stuff. Look up "correlation versus causation" and then come back to me when you have a basic grasp of how scientific study works.

[Driver101]

Evercross said:

Driver101 said:

Why do they have to prove something?

If you have to ask that question then it shows you lack the intelligence to understand the consequences of government imposing measures without justification or evidence of their stated aims.

Driver101 said:

If you are so confident it hasn't had any effect you'd have evidence at hand.

So wrong-headed it is unbelievable.

Driver101 said:

My local police force recently released their crime figures. Overall crime has dropped 8%. At a time of Brexit tension that really surprised me.

We also know that lots of people preload at home on cheap drinks before they hit the pubs and clubs. There was a 27% reduction in attendances to pubs and clubs for incidents.

It's hard to extract exact reasons for everything, but a 27% improvement since MUP came into effect is good. It could be coincidence, but there could be good merit.

I can see you are a complete sucker for this stuff. Look up "correlation versus causation" and then come back to me when you have a basic grasp of how scientific study works.

There is other studies that suggest it's working, but a bit early to gauge the full impact. Nobody ever said it was an overnight success plan. It is long plan.

You wrongly thought MUP had been in place for years. Maybe you are being overly harsh and not accounting for the far shorter timescale?

I'm sure you will be willing to offer your scientific findings, or will you just make digs and question without offering anything to the contrary?

Edited by Driver101 on Saturday 28th September 10:04

[Evercross]

Driver101 said:

There is other studies that suggest it's working,

No there isn't. Two sets of stats have been released so far. The first indicated no measurable improvement and the second (the one released this week) uses an incomplete data set to draw a false conclusion.

Driver101 said:

Nobody ever said it was an overnight success plan. It is long plan.

You sound like an SNP apologist. It is the sort of measure that if effective should show immediate and measurable results. The fact that the latest study shows a titchy change that could be negated by loads of other factors and admits that towards then end of the study the measured change was starting to drop off would indicate it is just another virtue-signalling exercise by the SNP with probably a load of unintentional consequences that they will refuse to acknowledge as per usual.

Driver101 said:

You wrongly thought MUP had been in place for years. Maybe you are being overly harsh and not accounting for the far shorter timescale?

You are the kind of person that is surprised crime is down in your area 'despite Brexit'. As I said - you are a sucker for hype and propaganda.

I'm not against policies that can measurably improve public health, but as I said earlier the SNP have a demonstrably poor record in this area and I put it down to them continually misunderstanding the true nature of the problem they are trying to tackle, implementing a naive solution that they think 'should' solve the problem then standing back and declaring a job done. It is tantamount to negligence.

Edited by Evercross on Sunday 29th September 10:35

[Driver101]

Evercross said:

Driver101 said:

There is other studies that suggest it's working,

No there isn't. Two sets of stats have been released so far. The first indicated no measurable improvement and the second (the one released this week) uses an incomplete data set to draw a false conclusion.

Driver101 said:

Nobody ever said it was an overnight success plan. It is long plan.

You sound like an SNP apologist. It is the sort of measure that if effective should show immediate and measurable results. The fact that the latest study shows a titchy change that could be negated by loads of other factors and admits that towards then end of the study the measured change was starting to drop off would indicate it is just another virtue-signalling exercise by the SNP with probably a load of unintentional consequences that they will refuse to acknowledge as per usual.

Driver101 said:

You wrongly thought MUP had been in place for years. Maybe you are being overly harsh and not accounting for the far shorter timescale?

You are the kind of person that is surprised crime is down in your area 'despite Brexit'. As I said - you are a sucker for hype and propaganda.

I'm not against policies that can measurably improve public health, but as I said earlier the SNP have a demonstrably poor record in this area and I put it down to them continually misunderstanding the true nature of the problem they are trying to tackle, implementing a naive solution that they think 'should' solve the problem then standing back and declaring a job done. It is tantamount to negligence.

Edited by Evercross on Sunday 29th September 10:35

You'll never change R11co.

What has lead you to believe my views on MUP has anything to do with the SNP? What a strange form of attack and you're the guy that keeps pointing out not to link unconnected matters. You'll not find me posting any support of the SNP on this forum ever. Sorry to point that out how wrong you are as per usual.

Why is the conclusion false? If you're going to call something false you could at least offer evidence why it is false.

You refuse to acknowledge that MUP started last year and not many years ago as you wrongly thought.

You're the man that says the links to drug deaths is directly linked to the price of alcohol. You are ignoring the trends that were long happening. Also England and Wales seen a 16% increase in deaths within a year with no MUP having an influence.

You think that the price of alcohol will force addicts to drop alcohol and go to drugs. You don't appear to understand what an addiction is.

How come you can make wild assumptions and factually incorrect statements, but I get hit will all your tripe when I offer my opinion?

Edited by Driver101 on Sunday 29th September 14:41